Yes, I do think unfortunately some currents employers could misread the approach. It would really depend on the student, the program, and the hiring field. To buffer that, these days it may pay to attend a more prestigious college to take a generalist approach, whether it is HYPS etc., or more of a Swarthmore / Bryn Mawr-type of LAC. I feel it can still be done successfully, but attention to the post-grad prospects would help.
It is a shame about Latin. Though classics departments keep chugging away, in the shadows of STEM.
I’d say most employers care more about your skills and what type of person you are then your major.
I also am not one to put Classics on a pedestal. There’s no reason why Latin and ancient Greek deserve their own major any more than Sanskrit and ancient Chinese do.
I tend to agree with you, @PurpleTitan . I think the reason Latin/Greek were on that “pedestal” was because in studying those languages you also studied the foundational works of Western Civilization. But in today’s far more global community, understanding Eastern Civilization or Middle Eastern Civilization is clearly also quite valuable, potentially.
For those that continue to focus on concerns that an employer would find a GS major possibly “unfocused” or somehow otherwise less employable, I can only say that this is simply (and quite easily) an issue of positioning oneself properly. I have spent much time studying the practice of presenting oneself for employment, and I can state with a very high level of certainty that the GS major could, for a great many types of positions, present themselves more favorably than a single focused major that is unrelated to the job otherwise. Do you really think that these companies don’t want sharp, intellectually curious people? People that by the nature of this major have delved into the world in general, the same world the company deals with? People that by the nature of the major have taken diverse ideas and brought them together in some logical construct, and at the same time learned to communicate their own ideas concisely and coherently? I think you vastly overstate some imagined prejudice by the employers about this major as opposed to majors such as history, anthropology, etc. But even if there is some small barrier due to ignorance of the degree, that in itself can easily be turned to an advantage by creating talking points that highlight the benefits of such a degree and the person that took that direction.
Perhaps if a school offered a “three minors” type of general studies major, it can make the major more broad-based by requiring one in each of humanities, social studies, and science.
@anhydrite, what is HYPS?
Interesting @ucbalumnus, that is what UCSB’s interdisciplinary studies is (unless it’s been changed): you need to combine three majors. I’m not sure of the criteria for subjects chosen.
I guess the question becomes, what defines general studies? Is it free-form, or can it be more narrowly focused? I guess a purist would be more in the free-form camp.
UPDATE: I just looked at those three samples that required three minors (or areas of focus). The first lets you pick anything from L&S, so you could choose math, Econ, and statistics, for example, which are thematic; the second has a requirement that all three be thematic; and the third example has a guy choosing three that have a military usage. These are all called general studies, but they do not appear to be a broad-based humanities/science/arts curriculum.
@PurpleTitan, I can’t vouch for others, but I did not intend to place classics on a pedestal. My own undergraduate major, comparative literature, stressed the validity of all languages and literatures, and particularly those which had not receive their due expression.
I don’t think you deliberately set up a straw man argument, but my intent was that the loss of studying ancient or “dead” languages is lamentable, and no less important in my mind than the study of, say, paleontology, or medieval history, etc. I think entering into Latin vs. other linguistic domains opens up the can of worms of canonical inclusion / exclusion, Orientalism, and other worthwhile discussions. But I’d prefer to avoid that here.
I will put in a word for the legitimacy of studying ancient languages in general, such as Chicago’s excellent Near Eastern and Semitic languages, and I would lament dwindling study in any of these fields. I don’t see a substantial difference between those, and Latin study, save for the contingency of how the flourishing of ancient Greek and Latin study became foundational for a time, mainly due to the influence of Renaissance / Enlightenment notions of education.
@lindyk8, HYPS/M is a popular acronym for Harvard / Yale / Princeton / Stanford / [occasionally appended] MIT. It’s not something I usually write, but as you might imagine, it can be a useful shorthand on this particular forum.
The UCSB interdisciplinary studies major “offers students an opportunity to develop an individualized program of study that provides a means to achieve a sharply focused academic goal that cannot be met by any existing major, a double major, or a major and a minor”, according to http://my.sa.ucsb.edu/Catalog/2012-2013/CollegesDepartments/ls-intro/intdisc.aspx?DeptTab=Undergraduate . I.e. the course selections from the three departments must be somehow related to a “sharply focused academic goal”, which does not appear to be what this thread’s discussion about general studies is about.
Probably the ultimate in free-form general studies can be done at Evergreen State:
http://evergreen.edu/registration/degrees
Of course, that is very different from general studies in the form of “great books” curricula (St. John’s College is one of the better known schools that does this, although it is not the only one).
Thanks @anhydrite!
As you said earlier @ucbalumnus, it would be interesting to see if there eventually becomes a required syllabi, which combines humanities, arts and science.
What hasn’t been mentioned is whether the student is CHOOSING general or liberal studies because that is what he or she is passionate about OR whether the student is placed there with some remedial overtones. For me, this influences whether one leans toward the fallenchemist or NJSue positions. And my impression from 2-3 years ago is that the NYU program in particular leans towards the latter version noted above.
That’s a great point, @finalchild. Like so many discussions, it is hard to move them forward unless the terms are well defined and understood by all participants. Perhaps to facilitate the path of study I am thinking of, a new name that both better reflects its purpose and doesn’t carry any baggage from the ambiguity possible with GS should be created and become a kind of standard for all schools, even if the particular courses involved are quite flexible. I imagine there is a name already being used that would fit.
I agree that’s probably a big detail that has been glossed over up until now. I remember a thread a few months ago about a student who was enrolled in a General Studies program and trying to see if he could use it to get into a master’s program at a top school. He was having a hard time because the ‘General Studies’ program is basically where they stuck students who were muddling around accumulating credits without making progress towards a degree. It had its value but it doesn’t inspire a lot of faith that it’s intellectually rigorous.
I think a new name might help, but honestly the program itself would have to be designed purposefully. The other risk that I am thinking of (and I’m not sure if this is even a ‘risk’) is that it would be hard to distinguish this program from a ‘Build Your Own Major’ programs that already exist at some schools. The challenge would be incorporating a reasonable amount of flexibility while still providing the breadth and depth that people seem to want from that course of study.
Yes, the word “general” implies middle, middling, less than expert, which is why despite the notion that it’s all in presentation (which trust me, as a diehard humanities person, I get), it can be a very hard sell. From a cognitive-linguistical POV, general is just a lousy term. However, since this is the term that appears to have taken root, it will probably be hard to change.
I know I’m beating a dead horse, but I’m really still not seeing a huge difference between interdisciplinary and this. Yeah, I know there are nuances, but come on, Interdisciplinary studies is pretty much fitting all the general studies major requirements that have been listed (meaning General Studies majors seem to have thematic requirements that parallel Interdisciplinary Studies). Maybe it’s just me but I would take a flat-out Interdisciplinary Studies major title (meaning that’s it, nothing else added) over a General Studies major title any day.
We might be dealing in minutia here, I’m not sure. But to me Interdisciplinary means blending two specific areas. There are of course many examples. General (or whatever new name would be preferable) still indicates (to me) a general absorption of knowledge, critical assessment of that knowledge, and honing of writing and oral communication skills, all free of the immediate concern of how that will be applied in the “real world”, but instead trusting that those skills are valued in the real world for their own sake, be it direct application in the marketplace or ivory tower musings. Depending on the individual, the difference between interdisciplinary and “GS” might be very small or somewhat more distinct.
I’m a huge fan of either. I think the willingness of some schools to support and encourage students in interdisciplinary studies by coordinating majors or whatever mechanism they use is a huge step in breaking down ridiculous barriers some academics had set up in the past in the name of “purity”.
BTW, I really love this discussion. To me this gets to the fundamentals of how we think about a university education in modern times.
I like it too @fallenchemist. I hear what you’re saying. I believe some of these general studies majors are still struggling to define themselves. I have not done a search but the three @ucbalumnus put up were more interdisciplinary in approach. It’s a fascinating concept, backtracking to the education systems of yore. I am wondering, does Oxbridge have any enlightened names or approaches?
UPDATE: sweet and to the point. Cambridge has 28 majors. (Doesn’t UC Berkeley have over a hundred?)
Oxford has a few more majors. The closest to any sort of blend is (1) History and Modern Languages and (2) Psychology, Philosophy, and Linguistics.
I’m sure Oxbridge does have some interdisciplinary approaches now, especially at the graduate level, but their educational system dates back to well before the reign of the Germanic / research disciplinary approach that migrated to North America in the 19th century. So it could be expected that the more traditional Oxbridge approach encompasses a foundational approach. Though importantly, the British system (more generalized) would need be taken into account – it is typically a three-year degree, with most or all courses specific to the major, then a Master’s may be possible thereafter.
The tutorial system has been fundamental for undergraduate education at Oxbridge. There are also specific expectations in the admissions process that differ from the American system; the breadth one may expect in an American general studies undergrad program may be partially covered in the high school / public school system in the U.K.
The U.S. system has excelled in research productivity, especially in the 20th-21st centuries. Yes, the major flagship institutions, like Berkeley, Michigan, Wisconsin, Texas, Cornell will approach or exceed one hundred majors. Oxbridge, under their original models, weren’t really structured to be all-encompassing in the manner of the forenamed U.S. universities, nor do Oxbridge have some of the enormous research funding available to the leading research institutions in the U.S.
I also think this is a really relevant discussion, and I am enjoying it too. I do agree with the point above re: whether the general studies track is a deliberate, motivated choice, or more of a remedial / catch-up assignment. That is something where the signaling would need to be clear to certain employers, if it were the former, advanced approach.
BTW, I think we should all come up with a new name and promote it wildly on CC. Correct anyone who uses old school “general”, and then have the Ask the Dean lady to write an article about it. Several articles. B-)
@lindyk8, the English universities (and European unis in general) are very regimented in what they allow students to study. So if you enter to study CS, you will only take the classes the CS department allows (which will be 90% CS classes). Same with English, History, etc. That said, they do have mixed majors. For instance CS&Philosophy or PPE (Politics, Philosophy, and Economics), etc. that allow students to study more than one subject. However, you are still restricted to the courses of that major. So in PPE, you may take courses in those 3 subjects (as well as the stats, math, and quantitative classes required for econ), but you won’t be allowed to take a history course or sociology course, much less any CS or science or business class. Its a system for creating specialists. The concept of a liberal arts education would be foreign to them over there.
It’s also actually not a great system for students. After all, how many 18 year olds know what they really like to study? There was a study done comparing English and Scottish unis (the Scottish unis don’t force students to choose a path so quickly; freshmen there are allowed to take intro classes in 2-3 majors before deciding on one) and a greater percentage of the grads in the Scottish unis were doing work in the field they majored in compared to the grads of English unis.